I have both 0-4-0 Side tank and 0-4-0 Saddle tank switchers. I often see 0-4-0ST in advertising and general postings on the web, usually with side tank added, but somtimes saddle tank. Is there a standard nomenclature that differentiates these two type of locomotives?
Short answer, no. The only way to differenciate is to say saddle or side. Both are tank engines.
Thanks. I just wondered since they had well tanks (WT), and pannier tanks (PT) (I am of the impression those were primarily British engine designations).
In fact, tank locomotives are divisible into a number of well recognized subclasses, of which “side tank” and “saddle tank” are just two examples.
Side tank locomotives are those with a pair of water tanks, rectangular in cross section, whose bases rest on the locomotive’s runningboards either side of the boiler and whose tops are lower than the top of the boiler.
Saddle tank locomotives have a single water tank which is an inverted U-shape in cross section, extending around and over the top of the locomotive’s boiler and generally not reaching all the way down the sides to the running boards. They generally have a larger water capicity than side tank engines.
Saddle tank engines are almost exclusively used in yard work, while large examples of side tank engines were employed as communter locomotives (in some cases also referred to as “suburban” bi-directional type) in early 20th century America. The situation was rather different and more complex in Europe.
CNJ831
CNJ831
So, is this one a side tank?
(Photo from www.loggingmallets.railfan.net)
Each tank is not rectangular in cross section and is higher than the top of the boiler. And yet there is not a single tank that extends over the top of the boiler. Seems there’s always an exception.
Ed
Actually, Ed, it’s just a side tank loco. Occasionally, as is the case with this articulated logging road engine, if the side-mounted water tanks were particularly large, their upper portion was curved to allow for forward visibility by the crew in the cab. There are clearly two individual tanks here which are mounted on the loco’s running boards.
CNJ831
I agree with CNJ. Think “Saddle” as in horse. It goes clear over the back of the animal. Out here in my neck of the woods, the Clover Valley Lumber Company had a 2-6-6-2 logging locomotive that used to run into Loyalton in the Sierra Valley. It was, to my memory, either referred to as a “side-tank” a “tank” or just plain “lokie.” I never heard it referred to as a “Saddle-tank.”
Tom
Yep yep I agree
Whenever I saw a loco labeled "Saddle"it’s tanks went up around, and over the boiler. Side tanks were always when they were seperate boxes on the side.
You would think they would make a lot more of the side tanks given it’s a lot easier to build a box. But I guess the saddle just held more.
Saddle tank locomotives normally did have a decided advantage over side tank examples in water capacity, allowing them to operate significantly longer in the yard before returning to the plug for a refill. However, the design had one particular flaw and it was that the locomotive could be decidedly top heavy and thus significantly limiting their operating speed. This is why one rarely ever saw a really large saddle tank engine, or one used in road service. In general, the design was mainly employed in relatively small yard or industrial switchers. There were some big logging engines of this design but they operated at very slow speeds.
Although there are about a dozen recognized types of tank locomotives, in the United States only three of these were ever common - the two types cited above and the “rear tank” design. This latter class included both some of the smallest and largest examples of all the tank locomotives. Some of these in switcher form, particularly from the mid to latter half of the 19th century, probably had a capacity of no more than a couple of hundred gallons of water. At the other extreme were the hulking Boston and Albany 4-6-6T bi-directional suburban tank locomotives used in passenger service.
CNJ831
Saddle tank.
Side tank.
There are variations in the sizes of tanks.
Rich
This is a Canadain National 4-6-4 Baltic Tank locomotive. this locomotive was used around Vancouver for cumuter work.
Good point. I had completely forgot about Suburban Tank locomotives. Don’t forget to sign your name in messages.
Rich
CNJ:
One of the more elegant examples of this is the CNJ J1 2-6-2T, as I’m sure you’ll agree. These apparently survived long enough to be reclassified SU23 after the war, but I don’t know what they were used for by that time…were they still hauling commuter trains? Information on these is tough to find.
It’s a pity none of these survived, although they might have ended up in Thomas paint. >:) I wouldn’t mind acquiring or building one; it would be a good fit for my little railroad.
(Photo below taken in 1938, from northeast.railfan.net)
The CNJ’s 2-6-2T class J-1 (later SU-23) side tank suburbans, totalling 25 engines and indeed a favorite of mine, began appearing on the property in early 1902 when much of the passenger equipment was still wooden. The introduction of steel coaches for commuter service around WWI was soon taxing these engines capabilities and in 1923 the CNJ began taking delivery of six much heavier class H 4-6-4T suburbans with “rear” tanks. With the passage of time, the 2-6-2T’s grew less and less practical for handling commuter runs and the first went to the scrapper in 1935. By July of 1945, all were were gone.
Of course, by the end of WWII even the larger class H’s were feeling their age and as many of the class J’s had dropped from service standard 4-6-0 camelbacks, equipped with rear-facing tube pilots on their tenders, took their places. Although they tracked less surely than t